|
 On Monday night, City Council, in a 7-2 vote, denied an application by Matt Buschman of the Buschante Development Group to demolish a home at 591 Joseph Street in the west end because of an interim control bylaw that prohibits development and demolitions within the expanded boundaries of Sandwich Town.
The premise of the freeze is to allow a one-year planning study to determine how historical Sandwich should best move forward to renewal. There are those who will attest that the real reason is an attempt to delay the Ambassador Bridge's construction of a new plaza to accommodate a replacement span for the current 80-year-old crossing.
Council opposes any efforts to move towards a twinning of the bridge, and imposed the freeze just ahead of the Bridge's bid to demolish six derelict homes it owns on Indian Road. On Monday last, Matt Buschman appeared before Council asking for a waiver of the demolition freeze once the one-year bylaw expires in January of 2008. He wants to build a duplex on the property.
Council denied the
request to withdraw its option to extend the freeze to a second year to
January, 2009. In voting against the denial, along with Councillor Drew
Dilkens, I suggested that Council is assisting with the ghettoization
of this area. My comment caused Ward 2 Councillor Caroline Postma to
fly off the handle.
Enough
said about that, other than to post the following June 28, 2007 letter
to the Mayor and City Council from the thwarted developer, a very
polite chap, I might add:
Good Afternoon Your Worship and members of Council:
First
off, I would like to thank the City for allowing us the opportunity to
present our item and a special thanks to all Council members whom
showed support in our behalf regarding the 591 St. Joseph property vs
the current Interim By-Law.
Unfortunately,
policies are in place, but I stress that individual situations need to
be looked at and weighted out in greater depth. Councilors' argument
that it was in a minor state of repair and habitable was absolutely
false. Major and costly alterations are quite eveident and would be a
lost effort as you could not obtain an appraisal to support the
finished condition, nor pass occupancy inspection in its current state.
Further, the major cracking on the wall is recent and for a house this
size (400 square feet) building new would be less effort and cost
effective.
My
greatest fear is that this current Interim By-Law has stopped the
Bridge Corp. from their objectives, but has created a massive permanent
hit to smaller corps such as ours, which is accompanied by far greater
and positive intentions. Ultimately, this is having a far greater
negative impact on the area itself than you could possibly imagine.
Is
there any gaurantee that once this bylaw expires (either Jan 08/o9)
that construction will be allowed or will there be a permanent ban in
the area simply because the entire area is now under protection? (Would
this be the case) Regardless of the fact that an individual property
history does not qualify for designation or is accompanied by unsafe
and unrealistic repairable state?
Can
we get direction on the matter that we will be able to continue
positive growth in the area in the form of demolition of qualified
homes (if necessary) with the new construction that perhaps mirrors
Olde Sandwich architecture? This would be an exciting compromise.
The
situation in the area has become stagnant and in some case dangerous,
inviting continued vandalism and major property damage. Awaiting until
Jan 08/09 only to find out that a permanent ban on all demolition and
improvements would be devastinting to all surounding residents.
Preventing qualified buildings and dwellings of special designation is
one thing we support as well, but to incorporate all buildings and
dwellings IS DESTABALIZING and going against the city's intentions
outlined in the Official Plan for the area.
Again,
I appreciate the support showed during the June 25th meeting. If at all
possible, could we receive a comment on future intentions with hope of
a positive outlook?
Sincerely,
Matt Buschman,
President,
Bushcante Development Group.
Since
Matt is preaching to the converted when he addresses me, I will ask him
to let me know if he receives any answers to his questions from my
colleagues.
Meanwhile,
I earnestly hope that the recent spate of arson on the west side, as
well as break-ins of vacant homes to steal copper piping, does not
escalate.
Edit: Here are some examples of homes already built by the Buschante Development Group in the City's West end. (3404 Bloomfield Rd.; 635 Chippawa St.; 675 Chippawa St.)
Readers have left 2 comments. No.1 Untitled
I don't understand what's going on in the west end. The University can demolish the Grad House, knock down 5 houses on Sunset to build a new Faculty/Staff parking lot, then 2 blocks away the Bridge Company is not being allowed to demolish their Indian Rd. houses (because they are West of Huron Church?). But then, the city is forcing a 90 year old man to knock down his house, the Outlaws Clubhouse is being taken care of and now 591 Joseph St. is being denied a request to demolish.
Where is the consistency in this city? No.2 591 Follow-Up
Since my orginal presentation to council I have experienced major vandalism which I made very clear to council I was in fear of. I will be forwarding pictures along with police report in hopes of council to reconsider and create a motion to bring back to council. We are not bridge corp., we are a corporation with a diversified student development sector that is committed to supply students with much needed development. At the same time, I would like to think that we are cleaning up the area and maintaining or increasing not only surrounding home value but a sense of security that the area needs desperately. We have 2-3yr plan that would address major "hazardous properties", you would think council would be thanking us for taking the risk and money to do something that they won't. Allowing this to happen, with all hidden politics aside, would be common sense and is seen that way to vast majority of surrounding residents and students. Whats the problem?
To this day, only response that I have been getting is from Mr. Halberstadt whom shows genuine concern and direction on the matter. Councilor Dilkens did support at council as well, 2/9 is a start!
Pictures and further thoughts to follow! 
|
